Sequel title: "Star Trek Into Darkness"

[Narse]

I am a long time ST fan. I have seen everything in the ST universe. I loved the 2009 movie. It was different and refreshing. I am really looking forward to the sequel.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

"low-riders was still faithful to shakespeare's original"

esplain!

never! well, ok: lava planet hoth

 

[Kadarin]

I liked the reboot movie, looking forward to the next.

 

[tommo123]

My dad hates everything that's not ToS. He loved the new film. So, it can't be that bad. He was skeptical as all hell till he watched it, though.




I can hand-wave this one by saying the Enterprise was warping back past the planetoid at low speed or something for whatever reason. My biggest problem with it, is that you can't beam through shields.

you can, if you have the frequency that the shields run at. obv, the enemy doesn't otherwise weapons would go straight through.

or at least you could in one of them anyway. maybe they're not that advanced yet?

 

[dmcowen674]

IMDB hasn't been updated yet but has it is in post production.

 

[Fritzo]

I think most people were pleasantly surprised about the new reboot so hopefully this keeps it going.

It was a sales success, but a lot of people were disappointed at the "generic space action movie" plot. You basically could have made that same movie with any set of characters.

 

[Fritzo]

I like Star Trek but all of the TNG movies weren't good. Sure I can watch them and they aren't horrible but they're not good, they're simply watchable.

Agreed. They tried too hard. The best one was First Contact, but that was basically a standard zombie movie plot.

 

[Fritzo]

Explain why it wasn't "star trek"?

Star Trek is about exploration, relationships, and humanity's evolution to solve problems. The last 15 years has turned Star Trek into "how many phasers and torpedoes can we fire in a single episode?" The writers turned the technology into the focal point of the show instead of the characters.

The last Star Trek movie was the epitome of this. The whole movie was about shooting, blowing things up, and fighting. Go watch Star Trek II and look at the differences in story telling. There was suspense, buildup, and wonderful pacing. The ships moved slowly so you could get a feel of how huge they are. The characters talked with each other about themselves instead of how they were going to blow up the enemy.

As much as I hated how Roddenberry kept a stranglehold on Trek content, I now see he did it for a reason---it prevent it from turning into what it is today.

 

[shortylickens]

ACTUALLY:


Star Trek was always about humans evolution to solve problems. Oh wait, you said that. Well, even when Gene Roddenberry had control he fully acknowledged that not all of those problems were mystical. Some of them were more straightforward, like how to deal with a hostile enemy force. Thats how you got those more militant movies and episodes. But they were all part of the same theme: Unusual solutions to all sorts of problems, some more mundane than others. The madman who wants to wage a personal war is sort of an old, overused plot device.

In fact my beef with Abrams movie is that so far as plot goes, its almost exactly the same as Star Trek II. An angry man so bent on revenge its twisted him over a period of years, a powerful tool of peace that was stolen and twisted into a doomsday weapon, the requisite action scenes and so forth. In fact STII was better because the unusual solution to their problem was the prefix code whereas Chris Pine just beamed over and started blasting everything, WHICH WAS SO FUCKING BORING! It had been used too much in every series episode and most of the movies up to that point.
In fact Kirk and Khan never meet face to face but its still a damn good thriller.

I dont mind that Star Trek broke the genre model so much as it was just a ripoff of previous movies. In fact it seems almost exactly like Nemesis except the story is told much better, using young guys who are more believable as action stars.

 

[Sonikku]

I dislike how they up and destroy Romulous. Vulcan is ok, place was hang out for hippies anyway. But the Romulans were essential to the franchise. After centuries of harsh relations the Feds were approaching a hard won peace, only for them to up and vanish.

The Feds better fucking have cloaks on their ships now at least.

 

[Phanuel]

I dislike how they up and destroy Romulous. Vulcan is ok, place was hang out for hippies anyway. But the Romulans were essential to the franchise. After centuries of harsh relations the Feds were approaching a hard won peace, only for them to up and vanish.

The Feds better fucking have cloaks on their ships now at least.

Romulous is still around though in this time period, it's the future that is still uncertain. Vulcan is definitely gone though.

 

[Sonikku]

In STO online, that follows the "Prime" timeline, Romulus is most definitely destroyed.

 

[Northern Lawn]

Vulcan is definitely gone though.

It don't matter if Vulcan is gone, Star Trek stories almost never go there or come across battleships.. if they have any.

There are still 10's of thousands of Vulcans that could have a colony and the franchise can go about business as usual.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Untrue. I think you will find that many people did not pay to see the film in the theater. After seeing it on my laptop I decided that the first 5 minutes would have been worth paying to see ... and no more. I would have paid $0.27 to see it in the theater.

always one in the crowd.

 

[Arkaign]

Original Series : Loved it
TNG : Liked it (some of it was great, some a bit silly, but w/e)
All spinoff/etc series : Meh, none of them caught my attention
ST1 : Cool, but a bit long imho
ST2 : Best of the best!
ST3 : Pretty good
ST4 : Silly, but good fun
ST5 : What the hell? Bad
ST6 : Okay, but not near as good as 2, 3, and 4
Generations : Meh, felt kind of like a waste of possibilities
First Contact : This might be my fave TNG film
Insurrection : Silly
Nemesis : Meh
Star Trek 2009 : I really enjoyed it

I think that if you didn't like the new Trek, you're probably one of those types who takes things waaaaaaaaaaay too seriously. It's like the Peter Jackson LOTR films. They're great films, they really are. But you can choose to hate them if you point out all of the stuff left out, or the increased % of content given to Aragorn/Arwen romance, etc. I think that'd be a shitty way to go through life though.

So I'm looking forward to the new one, and I'm a big fan of TOS.

 

[silverpig]

I lump the 2009 movie in with season 3 of Enterprise - entertaining, but not Star Trek.

 

[Fritzo]

Original Series : Loved it
TNG : Liked it (some of it was great, some a bit silly, but w/e)
All spinoff/etc series : Meh, none of them caught my attention
ST1 : Cool, but a bit long imho
ST2 : Best of the best!
ST3 : Pretty good
ST4 : Silly, but good fun
ST5 : What the hell? Bad
ST6 : Okay, but not near as good as 2, 3, and 4
Generations : Meh, felt kind of like a waste of possibilities
First Contact : This might be my fave TNG film
Insurrection : Silly
Nemesis : Meh
Star Trek 2009 : I really enjoyed it

I think that if you didn't like the new Trek, you're probably one of those types who takes things waaaaaaaaaaay too seriously. It's like the Peter Jackson LOTR films. They're great films, they really are. But you can choose to hate them if you point out all of the stuff left out, or the increased % of content given to Aragorn/Arwen romance, etc. I think that'd be a shitty way to go through life though.

So I'm looking forward to the new one, and I'm a big fan of TOS.

I didn't think the New ST movie was bad, it just that it was so generic that you could have put Dave, George, Frank and Tiffany in there and it would have been the same movie. Any characters could have played those roles.

 

[JEDI]

I dislike how they up and destroy Romulous. Vulcan is ok, place was hang out for hippies anyway. But the Romulans were essential to the franchise. After centuries of harsh relations the Feds were approaching a hard won peace, only for them to up and vanish.

The Feds better fucking have cloaks on their ships now at least.

Romulous destroyed???

huh? what?

 

[KeithTalent]

I think the last film is overrated. People had such low expectations that anything half-way decent would have blown them away and since this was a serviceable film, it reached levels of acclaim far exceeding what it warranted. Not a bad film, but not particularly great.

KT

 

[Kadarin]

I'd have to say that I felt First Contact was disappointing. It was fine, IMO, until they met Zefram Cochrane. He was portrayed as a drunken buffoon and that just did not feel believable. Riker and Geordi basically fixed up the rocket and flew with Cochrane in it, so you'd think history would have recorded that, right?

 

[torpid]

Original Series : Loved it
TNG : Liked it (some of it was great, some a bit silly, but w/e)
All spinoff/etc series : Meh, none of them caught my attention
ST1 : Cool, but a bit long imho
ST2 : Best of the best!
ST3 : Pretty good
ST4 : Silly, but good fun
ST5 : What the hell? Bad
ST6 : Okay, but not near as good as 2, 3, and 4
Generations : Meh, felt kind of like a waste of possibilities
First Contact : This might be my fave TNG film
Insurrection : Silly
Nemesis : Meh
Star Trek 2009 : I really enjoyed it

I think that if you didn't like the new Trek, you're probably one of those types who takes things waaaaaaaaaaay too seriously. It's like the Peter Jackson LOTR films. They're great films, they really are. But you can choose to hate them if you point out all of the stuff left out, or the increased % of content given to Aragorn/Arwen romance, etc. I think that'd be a shitty way to go through life though.

So I'm looking forward to the new one, and I'm a big fan of TOS.

We are similar in star trek taste except for first contact. I did not like that movie. Definitely the best next gen movie BY FAR though (those were among the worst movies I have ever seen).

I didn't mind the reboot. It was cheeky and still allowed for room to expand the universe into something that doesn't dead-end constantly with unanswerable questions and inconsistencies.

I didn't like Fellowship of the Ring, but I got over Jackson's treatment of LOTR by the second film and enjoyed the next two once I knew what I was getting. My beef had nothing to do with content left out so much as tone and pacing. The books had a very distinct tone and pace that made them spectacular and this was almost entirely missing from the trilogy. The first book in particular had a lot of whimsy and a much slower pace than the film. Even the craptastic animated Hobbit was better at this. I have very little faith in the new Hobbit movie(s) for this reason. Tone was especially important in that book, and Jackson has shown no interest in such things.

 

[Phanuel]

All spinoff/etc series : Meh, none of them caught my attention

DS9 had some of the best stuff in it. Garak and Bashir's relationship was fantastic. The space battles definitely got a step up after Babylon 5 ended and they inherited all of their cgi folks. I didn't give it a fair shake either when it aired originally. But watching it later, I definitely appreciate it way more now.

 

[GTaudiophile]

The reboot, while not "true" Star Trek, was a fun, summer popcorn flick that also revived a dying franchise. A world with ST-light is better than a word without ST at all.

 

[blankslate]

Good. If I wanted old star trek feel I would watch old star trek. I find the reboot refreshing.

This and they used some speculation about time travel and quantum theory to make sure to state that the old time line still exists even if Spock (older one) isn't there anymore.

 

[clamum]

Kind of a weird movie title if you ask me. Seems like there should be a colon or dash after "Star Trek" but the article says they're not going that route. Whatevs. I really enjoyed the reboot and will definitely see this one when it comes out.